Daniel Peterson wrote:As Scratch knows, I flatly deny having led or participated in any effort to slander Mike Quinn, Robert Ritner, or any of the other victims of my supposed evils that Scratch revels in parading before the horrified gaze of the handful of people here who may perhaps trust him.
Then why did Ritner threaten to sue both you and Gee? You bellowed on and on about how your kids would lose their inheritance, etc. Basically, whenever you "flatly deny" anything, it essentially means that you've been caught with your pants down. Quinn is sleeping on a futon, w/ no health insurance thanks in part to the crap you and your pals have engaged in.
He simply doesn't care. He's safe in malevolent anonymity to traduce the character of others with no real consequence to himself.
Nothing I have ever done even remotely compares to the real-life consequences which have been suffered by the targets of your scorn. Do you care about the results of what YOU have done?
Mister Scratch wrote:Try telling that to Prof. Peterson, who maliciously baited Infymus into an angry outburst, and then proceeded to pass along the private email exchange to his pals on SHIELDS. He did this to an RfM poster named "Susie Q" as well.
That's a scream.
Poor, gentle Infymus was minding his own business one lovely spring afternoon, tending to the petunias in his garden and pausing occasionally to save a baby seal, when Big Bad Peterson (taking a lunch break from his day job of slander, libel, cunning deception, shameless lies, and rumor mongering, and having picked poor, gentle Infymus entirely at random) swooped in to the tune of the Darth Vader theme from Star Wars. Amidst peals of thunder, flashes of lightning, and the neighing of terrified horses, Big Bad Peterson deliberately tormented poor, gentle Infymus so severely that poor, gentle Infymus was compelled to express himself in . . . uncharacteristically uncharitable words.
All that's lacking is the black cape, the top hat, and the curling black moustache.
Anybody is welcome to read the exchange with Infymus. Although I haven't looked recently, I think it's up in full (with only poor, gentle Infymus's obscenities edited out).
In other words, you are giving yourself a free pass. You were mad at Infymus, and decided to stick it to him by "leaking" the emails. Tell me, is seeking revenge part of Heavenly Father's Eternal Plan?
And the entire, unedited exchange with Susie Q is there, as well. I did nothing with that material for a year, but, when I grew tired of her continual gross mischaracterizations on RfM of what I had said to her (in a two-way correspondence that her audience had had no chance to read) and her claims about how "brutally" I had treated her, I acted on the maxim that the truth is the best defense.
I'm sort of blown away by this. Are you now admitting (at last) that you really do maintain a kind of "archive" so that you can later use things written in the spur-of-the-moment in order to take revenge on people?
Of course, when the truth is "inconvenient" -- as it evidently is here, in the case of Scratch and the Falsified Personal Message -- certain unscrupulous people will resort to lies in an attempt to avoid the embarrassment of what they've done. And, as you and I both know, Scratch, this isn't your first time to do so. It's rather amusing, though, that you falsely seek to tar me with culpability for the very things that you yourself habitually do.
A) You have no real evidence, and B) "habitually" might be the accurate descriptor for YOUR behavior, but for me you have, at best, two examples.
by the way: Are you ever going to get around to explaining how those Sorenson articles actually support your argument?
Pop! Go ahead and let Yme know that you are afraid to deal with this issue over here. I'm sure s/he will appreciate it, given your endless taunts.
